N.Y. Plans Sex Offender Confinement Law

[Judi Lynn]

N.Y. Plans Sex Offender Confinement Law

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 1, 2007
Filed at 12:06 p.m. ET

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- New York's most dangerous sex offenders will be locked up in psychiatric centers after their prison terms end if a court determines they continue to pose a threat to the public, Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced Thursday.

Spitzer and lawmakers began negotiating a new ''civil confinement'' law after the state's highest court struck down former Gov. George Pataki's order preventing such offenders from being released.

The Court of Appeals said in its November ruling that the state had failed to set up a process for applying the Pataki order when it confined convicted sex offenders in psychiatric facilities.

Under the new version announce Thursday, mental health experts will assess inmates scheduled release from prison to determine if they pose a risk of committing more sex offenses. A jury will then decide whether a convict is likely to commit future crimes and a judge will rule on confining the offender or requiring intensive supervision.
(snip/...)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Sex-Offenders.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[HuffleClaw]

1. utter madness

cute attempt to erode the rights of america's citizens. who's gonna defend sex offenders? of course, eventually they'll decide its 'political criminals' who need to be locked up. the soviets did this.

[IA_Seth]

2. So what would you suggest?

If people with psychiatric issues (which I'd argue sex offenders are) pose a threat to society, where/what would you do with them?

The boogeyman isnt around every corner ya know.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. This is one of those 'gnaw on my hat' moments.

For a great many of these offenders, the pre-release interview will be the first contact they'll have with a psychiatrist since being sent away.

Yes, they do need psychiatric care. WHICH THEY SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. We are warehousing the mentally ill with the gangsters and career criminals, then releasing them back to the real world without treatment, so they offend again. But if they'd gotten the psych care they needed during their time in prison they wouldn't be facing an indefinite confinement AFTER serving 5, 15, 25 years. But they can't get that treatment in prison because the corporations that run the prisons make no profit off them that way.

Offenders with psychiatric issues need therapy to coincide with their incarceration, not have involuntary committment tagged onto their prison sentence. And if someone is so nuts that he cannot be risked being loose in the community, he had no business being in the prison in the first place - he should have been in a high security mental institution to begin with.

[IA_Seth]

6. Now that makes sense...

I agree with you on all points. Sadly however, it isnt the way it works right now, and I think this newer approach may be what is needed until our prison system is revamped (with proper pysch care).

It isn't the best possible outcome, but if someone is at risk to re-offend they should NOT be released into society.

[youngdem]

8. Couldn't have said it better....Well put.

May I only add that I am most disappointed in Spitzer for this bit of grandstanding. I guess this is the inevitable blind spot of electing a prosecutor governor. You get overzealous prosecution and ridiculous laws in some instances. Again though, I am surprised and disappointed with Spitzer. This is pandering to idiots.

[LiberalEsto]

9. Treatment doesn't work for these cases

When I was a newspaper reporter in NJ some years ago, my beat included Rahway State Prison ("Scared Straight") and an adjacent special treatment center in Avenel, NJ for sex offenders. One time the psychiatrists and officials from Avenel did a presentation about the then-state-of-the-art treatment center for the media and law enforcement people.

Afterward I talked to one of the therapists off the record. I asked him, "Does this really work? Can they be cured?" And the guy said no, these guys have the worst recidivism rates of all offenders and don't improve with treatment of any kind.

Time and again we read about horrible kidnapings and child murders committed by people who were previously jailed for similar crimes, then released. I do not believe it is any more possible to cure a severe sex offender than it is to "cure" homosexuality.

Sex offenders may very well be influenced by their DNA. though some people who are horribly sexually abused themselves as kids also grow up to prey sexually on others. Until we can figure out how to permanently cure them, they shouldn't be allowed to roam free and prey on our children.

[varkam]

12. Actually

recidivism rates for sex offenders are among the lowest for any type of criminal. Approximately 15% reoffend after a five year period. That's probably because the term "sex offender" is so widely applied. Anyone who commits any sort of a crime that's even tangentially related to sex is labeled as a sex offender. Adult males who have a sexual preference for male boys are most likely to reoffend, but everyone gets tagged with the same label. So for the most severe cases, that might be the case, but for the vast majority it's simply not true.

[redqueen]

18. That's not right... if the crimes are not the same,

they shouldn't all be treated the same after they're released or upon release... but it seems like that's what's happening.

Our corrections system is such a mess... there's little to no rehabilitation going on... it's just another industry. Ugh.

[Tesha]

21. Our society only understands black-and-white, not shades of grey. (NT)

[qwlauren35]

15. Why release a pedophilic child killer?

If not a death sentence, why would such a person ever get parole? I must be missing something.

[Tesha]

22. Perhaps such a person shouldn't get parole. But...

> Why release a pedophilic child killer?
>
> If not a death sentence, why would such a person ever get parole?

Perhaps such a person shouldn't get parole. But
such people are quite rare, no matter how much
play they get from tabloid news outlets.

Lots of "sex offenders" are guys who got caught
peeing in a public place, guys who got caught
having sex in the men's room, and people of both
sexes who had sex with a willing partner who
happened to be a bit too young.

Our society is frequenctly panicked by the wrong
"threats".

Tesha

[varkam]

25. But not all sex offenders are pedophilic child killers

But so goes the public perception of the term. The vast majority of sex offenders are not even pedophiles. Someone who rapes and kills a child probably won't be released, or at least not for a very very long time given the nature of their crime. However, it seems that the public views anyone convicted of a sex offense as a pedophilic child killer.

[primavera]

29. Precisely

Petrified that they might allow a serious sex offender escape the net, officials have come up with incredibly broad definitions of who may be considered a sex offender. Suddenly the 18 year old who has consensual sex with his 17 year old girlfriend can be branded with the same sex offender label applied to the serial pedophile. By that incredibly loose definition, my first girlfriend would qualify as a sex offender and be subject to all of the same constraints and stigmas that go along with it. I hear she's now married, has three kids, and is a stay-at-home soccer mom - obviously a serious menace to society.

[boilerbabe]

42. Hang that evil Soccer Mom!!

What's the statute of limitations for such a heinous crime?! Related story I read recently in USA Today...A mother of a pregnant teenaged daughter was convicted as being a sex offender after allowing the daughter's boyfriend (father of the child) to live with them. Due to newly enacted residency laws, her family had to move to the outskirts of town. I think this was in Georgia...

[pokercat999]

17. We might be able to find the answer to this and

many of the other problems facing the US if we didn't spent so much on our Military. What a f---ing no-brainer. Every day I am amazed at how stupid we Americans are (I mean collectively). I mean really, we've got to be the dumbest group of people on earth.

[ProudDad]

54. Not to mention

the phony "war on terror" and the phony "war on drugs"...

Ooops, I wasn't supposed to mention those...

[Zhade]

36. Um, why the hell are you comparing homosexuality to raping children?

NT!

[varkam]

37. I live in the bible belt

and I know that there are people around here who consider that a sex crime as well.

[boilerbabe]

41. I think it is wrong to link sex offenders with homosexuality..

That may not have been your intent when you voiced the opinion that it is no more possible to cure a severe offender than it is to "cure" homosexuality. I see what I think you intended by that statement, but, people have a tendency to link sex offenders with homosexuals, which is doing a great disservice to the many GLBT citizens out there. Sexual preference should not be considered synonymous with sexual crime.

[hedgehog]

34. You and many others are assuming that these people are

mentally ill. Maybe they're evil. While psychiatry may provide descriptions such as sociopath, I question whether the absence of a conscience is a health issue or a moral issue. We're not talking about the rare schizophrenic responding to instructions only he or she can hear to bludgeon a family member. We're talking about a perfectly functional adult who feels perfectly OK with sexual assault. In the last 15 years, we've heard about gang rapes in Serbia, Bosnia, Darfur and Iraq. Rape is a common tool of intimidation. Are all these people mentally ill, or evil?

[primavera]

35. "Evil"? What is this, a fairy tale?

What makes a person "evil"? Satan? The Dark Side of the Force? What? What is "evil" beyond simply making bad decisions for such pedestrian reasons as poor education, inadequate information, distorted views of reality, or mental incapacity?

[varkam]

38. "Are all these people mentally ill, or evil?"

I think that's a false choice that you're offering. Evil is an incredibly vague term that doesn't really define the construct that is the pathological or maladaptive behavior, and as such offers little insight into motivation, intent, or treatment possibilities. It's an easy way out.

Mental illness may play a part, but I don't think it can be boiled down to just that. Offending behavior is typically complex, and usually has several different motivations or intentions.

And, for the record, there are sex offenders - including ones who have committed heinous crimes - that have expressed sincere remorse for their actions.

[djg21]

46. You're not right!

Sex offenders get treatment/counseling while incarcerated in NY's prisons.

That being said, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is incredibly high, irrespective of counseling and therapy. Stated simply, trying to "cure" many sex offenders from the compulsion to commit sexual offenses is like attempting cure you or I from the compulsion to breathe. As I see the issue, it's not whether to confine some sex offenders civilly, but determining which sex offenders should be so confined. I think we all can agree that confining an 18 year-old boy who has a 15 year-old girlfriend would be silly. On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to permanently remove from society persons who commit heinous or repeated sex crimes.

[ProudDad]

51. If they're getting appropriate treatment

in New York, you're sure doing a hell of a lot better than California where the waiting lists are VERY long and the treatment less than adequate until lately.

I'd like to see a link to prove your statement: "Sex offenders get treatment/counseling while incarcerated in NY's prisons."

[djg21]

60. here you are

While I can't cite an article, I can refer you to the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Donhauser v. Goord, 04-2222pr,181 Fed. Appx. 11, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8859 (2d Cir. Mar. 22, 2006) (Table). At issue in that case was the NY Department of Correctional Services' clinical rehabilitation program for sexual offenders.

If you don't have access to Lexis or Pacer, you can read a synopsis of the lower case decision that was vacated and remanded by the Second Circuit at http://www.docs.state.ny.us/pressrel/sexoffender.html.

on edit: as there appears to be a problem with the above link, I am posting the entirety of the DOCS press release, which is a public document(emphasis added):

New York State
Department of Correctional Services
Glenn S. Goord, Commissioner

Office of Public Information
<518> 457-8182
www.docs.state.ny.us

For immediate release:
Thursday, May 6, 2004


Prison system suspends inmate sex offender treatment program in face of 'outrageous' court order;
Commissioner Glenn S. Goord says ruling would gut the program by giving control of it to inmates

Commissioner Glenn S. Goord today ordered the immediate suspension of the prison system's sex offender treatment program and the substitution of an intensive counseling alternative while he appeals what he termed an "outrageous" federal court decision and order that he said guts the program by allowing inmates to dictate its rules of operation.

U.S. Northern District Court Judge David Hurd in Utica issued a 35-page decision and four-page order on April 15 that temporarily restrains the Department of Correctional Services from compelling inmates to discuss their sex offender history. He then denied the Department's request for a stay of his order while the Department appealed his decision, only modifying his original order on April 23. In that two-page order, he prohibited the state from taking good time from inmates who choose not to divulge their sexual histories. The Department will seek a stay of Judge Hurd's ruling from the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Commissioner Goord said, "Sex offenses are all about control. The judge has perpetuated that cycle by placing inmates in control of whether or not they will disclose their sexual histories in prison sex offender programs -- even though they would be required to do so to participate in similar programs outside of prison in New York or inside of many other prison systems across the nation. The judge's ruling effectively guts the program. It gives inmates a degree of control unheard of in most other sex offender programs, in prison or in the community."

Commissioner Goord said his chief priority is safety, inside and outside of prisons. He said, "The judge's order places me in a very difficult position: I realize the need to make inmates participate in a meaningful sex offender program to protect the public upon their release. But, at the same time, it would be a sham to deconstruct the program by allowing inmates to control how the program operates. I have program staff preparing an in-depth counseling program that will replace the sex offender treatment program while the judge's decision is appealed. In the meantime, no more inmates will be transferred into the sex offender treatment program. It is my intention that our new, intensive counseling program will continue to ensure the protection of all New Yorkers."

Virtually all sex offender programs across New York, in and out of prisons, require participants to discuss their histories as a means of addressing their overall criminal or aberrant behavior. Experts say that offenders must confront the totality of past behavior in order to begin dealing with it and to allow counselors to measure their progress and commitment to changing their behavior.

That's why in New York's prisons, as well as in at least 16 other state prison systems across the nation, inmate participants are penalized if they refuse to discuss those histories. In New York prisons, that penalty is a potential loss of good time, extending their stay in prison.

Judge Hurd offered the Department two suggestions: make the sex offender program optional for inmates, or grant them "use immunity" for anything that they say during their program participation.

Commissioner Goord noted that any inmate who refuses to participate in an assigned program -- such as academics, vocational training, drug treatment or work assignments -- faces the loss of good time. "It strikes at the heart of our ability to manage the system if inmates can dictate the terms under which they participate in programs that we deem necessary for them to have any chance of a successful return to our streets."

"Use immunity" means that, while program staff could report any unsolved crimes or attacks confessed to by inmates, prosecutors could not use that information unless they could convince a judge they would have discovered the same information without the inmate's statement. In effect, inmates could admit other violent acts -- including murder -- and the "use immunity" would prevent their statements from being used against them.

"'Use immunity' places an intolerable burden upon prosecutors," Commissioner Goord said. "I will not grant inmates 'use immunity' that is tantamount to a 'stay out of jail card' complicating attempts to convict them of other crimes. 'Use immunity' grants inmates a sword with which to fight prosecution rather than a shield protecting their rights."

Before the judge's ruling, any detailed information on prior crimes disclosed during program proceedings could have, hypothetically, been reported to appropriate prosecutors.

Commissioner Goord added, "The judge appears willing to place a perceived Fifth Amendment inmate right above the public's safety. Yet the fact remains that no inmate has ever divulged information in our programs that led to the inmate's prosecution. But the judge's order, in effect, would now open the door for inmates to admit past crimes and then make it extremely difficult for district attorneys to ever prosecute them."

There were 6,183 inmates serving sentences for sex offenses among the 64,781 inmates incarcerated in the state's 70 prisons on April 3. The Department operates 360 sex offender treatment program beds at the Gowanda prison in Erie County, 100 beds at the Oneida prison in Oneida County plus another 100 beds spread among 13 other prisons across the state. Virtually all of those beds are filled today. The six-month program serves more than 1,000 offenders each year. Since sex offenders generally serve minimum sentences of more than a few years, virtually all of them will participate in the program prior to their release.

Over calendar years 2002-03, 2,766 inmates lost good time for refusing program assignments -- including 500 who refused the sex offender treatment program. Ironically, the inmate who brought the lawsuit in which Judge Hurd issued his order has lost a total of two years' good time for refusing to participate in the sex offender and the aggression treatment programs. The inmate, David Donhauser, 36, is serving a sentence of 3-6 years for convictions in Erie and Wyoming counties for third-degree rape and two counts of third-degree burglary. He entered the prison system in August 1999 and is currently housed at the Mid-State Correctional Facility in Marcy.

[santaclawsz]

48. no parole

If a criminal isn't in a position to be released into society without being monitored, why are we releasing him from jail?

[ProudDad]

57. Here's Why

http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/index.php?id=3080

[rodeodance]

7. I agree with your comments. confinement for percieved future actions

they might do is not good.

there must be some other way to address this issue-------some sort of combined education, monitoring ect ect.

[customerserviceguy]

11. I'm in favor

of a quick application of lead, between the eyes.

Lifetime incarceration for perverts that prey on the vulnerable is a sensible alternative to my plan. Live with it, or deal with the vigilante justice that will follow if you try to turn the pedophiles and rapists back out onto the street, under some misguided notion that they can be "educated" out of it.

[varkam]

13. Very compassionate eom

[VegasWolf]

20. Good response! nt

[Irreverend IX]

27. Indeed.

The most compassionate way to deal with a pedophile is to swiftly kill them. There is no effective treatment for sexual predators, and they have one of the highest recidivism rates of any type of criminal. There is simply no reason that someone who commits rape or is attracted to children should be allowed to rejoin society, and since the justice system is fallible I advocate imprisoning them for life instead of summarily executing them. And of course I agree that the "sex offender" status should be reserved for those who victimize others, not the public urinators and bathroom cruisers.

[nodehopper]

31. how come "sexual predator" gets conflated with "pedophile"?

as someone pointed out about, current laws do not distinguish between a bona fide pedophile, and, say, an 18-year old having sex with his 16-year old girlfriend pr boyfriend (Whose parents may be pissed off).

[djg21]

64. No . . . but

NY's civil confinement bill does take into account these issues. It provides that before a sex offender's scheduled release from prison, a panel of mental health experts will assess the inmate to determine if they pose a risk of committing more sex offenses. A jury will then decide whether a convict is likely to commit future crimes and a judge will rule on confining the offender or placing them under intensive supervision after release.

While not perfect, it's definitely workable, and it clearly serves a compelling state interest. As a practical matter, I think it highly unlikely that a panel of mental health experts would advocate for the confinement of someone who urinated in public!

That being said, the bill is a cop-out of sorts. I would much rather see the sentencing guidelines changed so that those convicted of genuine sex crimes are imprisoned for life with no chance of parole.

[varkam]

39. Several popular misconceptions.

There is no effective treatment for sexual predators

CBT treatment focusing on relapse prevention has shown to be statistically significant.

and they have one of the highest recidivism rates of any type of criminal.

According to the Center for Sex Offender Management (which is funded by the Department of Justice), they actually have one of the lowest recidivism rates of any type of criminal. Approximately 13% of sex offenders commit a new sex crime within a five year release period. On total reconvictions for any type of crime, they still are about 10-20% lower than any other type of criminal.

And of course I agree that the "sex offender" status should be reserved for those who victimize others, not the public urinators and bathroom cruisers.

Well I agree with you there.

[Irreverend IX]

44. But the study you're citing...

Deals with sex offenders as classified by the legal system, a category that includes guys who had 16-year-old girlfriends, public urinators, etc. Of course those people are going to have a low reoffense rate. In my post I was referring to pedophiles, rapists and others who get off sexually by victimizing others. As far as I know those pathologies are components of a person's sexuality and can't be eliminated any more easily than you could eliminate a person's hetero- or homosexuality. Even castration doesn't fully stop their destructive behavior. But if someone has found a way to eliminate that behavior through therapy, I'd be interested in reading about it.

[varkam]

45. Even pedophiles and rapists

have a fairly low reoffense rate, according to the CSOM. It's higher than other classes of sex offenders, but still lower than non-sex criminals. And again, CBT focusing on relapse prevention has shown to be statistically significant in further reducing reoffense rates.

[djg21]

65. This is just wrong!!!

Here is a link to a USDOJ study on recidivism among sex offenders (real ones -- not those convicted of public urination). http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm.

Among the highlights:

"Compared to non-sex offenders
released from State prisons, released
sex offenders were 4 times more likely
to be rearrested for a sex crime.
Within the first 3 years following their
release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517
of the 9,691) of released sex offenders
were rearrested for a sex crime. The
rate for the 262,420 released non-sex
offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of
262,420)."

"Compared to the 9,691 sex offenders
and to the 262,420 non-sex offenders,
released child molesters were more
likely to be rearrested for child molesting.
Within the first 3 years following
release from prison in 1994, 3.3% (141
of 4,295) of released child molesters
were rearrested for another sex crime
against a child. The rate for all 9,691
sex offenders (a category that includes
the 4,295 child molesters) was 2.2%
(209 of 9,691). The rate for all 262,420
non-sex offenders was less than half of
1% (1,042 of the 262,420)."

"Released child molesters with more
than 1 prior arrest for child molesting
were more likely to be rearrested for
child molesting (7.3%) than released
child molesters with no more than 1
such prior arrest (2.4%)."

[varkam]

69. I'm assuming you mean to say that I'm wrong in this statement:

It's higher than other classes of sex offenders, but still lower than non-sex criminals. (re: recidivism rates)

"Compared to the 9,691 sex offenders
and to the 262,420 non-sex offenders,
released child molesters were more
likely to be rearrested for child molesting.
Within the first 3 years following
release from prison in 1994, 3.3% (141
of 4,295) of released child molesters
were rearrested for another sex crime
against a child. The rate for all 9,691
sex offenders (a category that includes
the 4,295 child molesters) was 2.2%
(209 of 9,691). The rate for all 262,420
non-sex offenders was less than half of
1% (1,042 of the 262,420)."

I don't mean to say that the sex crime revidivism rate is lower for sex offenders than for non-sex offenders, and perhaps I should of made that clear. It's true that sex criminals are more likely to commit another sex crime than non-sex criminals. I imagine it's also true that drug criminals are more likely to be arrested for another drug crime than sex criminals. This study seems to be comparing the two groups not on straight recidivism, but on sex crime reconviction rates.

on edit: Here is where I'm drawing the bulk of my own information on recidivism from - feel free to review it and point out anything I'm mistaken on.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Yes, indeed.

What we need is a final solution for our sex offender problem.

:crazy:

[ProudDad]

55. Very compassionate

:sarcasm: (just in case)

and displaying a great deal of ignorance of the subject. :eyes:


You can start here: http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html



Don't bother trying here though:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsorp94.htm

Typical bushco bullshit.

Right on the face of it, they cite one egregiously stupid conclusion:

"Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested FOR A SEX CRIME."

See if you can figure out what's wrong with that statement...

[Tesha]

23. Reply #4 explained it quite well.

The state had them under lock-and-key for
all those years, yet (typically) has done
*NOTHING* to help them with their psychological
problems.

Tesha

[OneBlueSky]

3. very slippery slope here . . .

first it's sex offenders . . . who's next? . . .

[The2ndWheel]

5. It's not a slippery slope anymore

We've been on the road to perfection for a long time. Our attempts at social and biological engineering aren't on any slope. Any trees on that slope have already been cut down, the land was churned up, flattened, and paved over. At this point we're debating(like when the US goes to the UN before we bomb someone) whether or not to build a stop sign. Obviously we won't, and we will finally defeat nature and all its imperfections, even if we have to destroy it.

[ProudDad]

56. You hit the nail on the head!!!

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

It's very easy to demonize or objectify any group of people you don't like. Once you accomplish the task of turning that group into "objects", it's a short journey from there to the ovens...

[pitohui]

10. if a person poses a threat to themselves or others, they should be confined

hasn't that always been the case?

if someone is so mentally ill that they can't control these urges, then they are a threat to others and are properly confined under the usual mental health guidelines in my humble opinion

totally unclear to me why we need a new law, other than current mental health agencies and institutions receive so little funding that they are unwilling to confine anyone except under duress

hence the obviously disturbed people who are allowed to roam free to threaten the vulnerable

gee thanks, mr reagan

[redqueen]

19. Good point - we don't need a new law...

we just need more sensible application of current laws.

[noonwitch]

14. If it's decided on a case-by-case basis...

Let's say a sex offender, who committed a brutal crime, finishes his 25 year sentence. Let's say that in that 25 years, he has raped other inmates, been sexually inappropriate toward COs, and has repeatedly violated rules in prison. This situation does give the state an option over just letting that person loose in a neighborhood somewhere.

[hedgehog]

32. But to identify that person, you're going to need to reform prisons.

As has been noted with unseemly glee on other threads, sexual predators seem to have the run of our prisons today.

[ProudDad]

59. You're partly right

in order to fulfill their mission, and to cover their correctional asses, prisons encourage inmate mob rule by the inmates.

Part of this mob rule is rampant sexual predation against the weakest inmates perpetrated by the STRONGEST HETEROSEXUAL INMATES.

This activity is pretty much ignored by the authorities, just as most other predatory behavior in prisons is ignored in order to "keep the inmates quiet". Since prisons are not meant to rehabilitate anyone nor are they capable of doing so by their very nature, they instead serve as warehouses for the unfortunate few who commit "crimes" and get caught, convicted and sentenced to prison or jail.

As for "sex offenders", they, like arsonists, are at the bottom of the prison food chain. They are dealt with in prison with a misplaced, hypocritical, "righteous" anger by the most predatory of their fellow inmates with beatings, death or, ironically enough, sexual predation.

There are almost NO persons convicted of "sex crimes" who get can away with this type of activity in prisons.

[ProudDad]

61. Actually, the only real cure

is ABOLITION of the nightmarish prison system as it's currently constituted.

It should be torn down and replaced with a system that includes diversion and in-community rehabilitation for MOST and humane segregation coupled with therapy and rehabilitation for the most dangerous FEW.

There are still a very tiny minority of people who probably cannot be released into society, ever.

We must treat these persons humanely if we are to become a humane society someday. To torture them the way we do now demeans and degrade us and serves to validate their bizarre view of society...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/CrimePunish_Pelican.html

[salitine]

16. Until/unless someone figures out a treatment/procedure for treating habitual offenders,

individual assessment is the only option for examining whether someone is suitable for re-introduction into society after committing a sex-based offense. It's not pretty, but there you go. The consequences of the repetition of a crime outweigh the inconvenience of treatment and examination. Means allot more Republicans will be making trips overseas.

[VegasWolf]

24. Criminals committing violent crimes including murder have higher recidivism rates

than sex offenders. How many types of criminals do you want to confine to psychiatric institutions?

[primavera]

33. Excellent point

There is no shred of evidence to support (and quite a bit to refute) the allegation that sex offenders are intrinsically any more likely to re-commit a crime than any other class of criminal. If recidivism were genuinely the basis of our concern about sex offenders, then to not be hypocrites, we would have to be discussing laying down blanket life sentences to every category of criminal, because, at least in terms of recidivism, sex offenders are no worse than other classes of criminals and are in fact better than many. The only thing that distinguishes them from other classes of criminals is that their crimes are so shocking to our moral sensibilities, we're prepared to strip them of basic legal rights protections which we cheerfully extend to murderers and every other type of criminal. And that's not right: in a society governed by rule of law, laws have to apply equally to everyone, all of the time, not just to a select few or when we happen to find it convenient or agreeable.

[varkam]

40. Very true.

People convicted of drug offenses, theft, murder, assault, etc. all have higher reconviction rates on the average. But yet there is no registry for such individuals, nor is there any sort of monitoring beyond probation / parole like there is with sex offenders.

The book Culture of Fear and to a lesser extent Freakonomics both submit that we are often afraid of the wrong things. For example, in Freakonomics it's noted that a child is much more likely to die at a house with a swimming pool than at one with a gun in it - yet parents are often much more reluctant to send their child to a house with a gun than a house with a pool. That's because it's much scarier to imagine your child being shot to death than drowning. Likewise, imagining your child being raped is a lot scarier than imagining them being robbed and beaten (which can be just as many psychological consequences for the victim).

[sarcasmo]

26. What about the Killer Confinement Law.

[goforit]

30. You mean one that would keep Bush and Cheney behind bars?

[piedmont]

28. This would be a bad, BAD precedent

Using the (extemely imperfect) mental health care system to prognosticate "future-crime" is not something I ever want to see happen in this country.

[brentspeak]

53. Would you want a dangerous sex offender living in your neighborhood?

[ProudDad]

58. You probably do

for every 1 person who's caught and convicted there are at least 10 persons who have done or are doing the same thing.

It is estimated that one out of every 10 males and one out of every 30 females has committed a felony sex act at some time in their lives...

You wanna' lock 'em all up???


"Not all sex offenders have been caught and convicted. Most sex offenses are committed by family, friends or acquaintances of the victim."

http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/

http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html

[piedmont]

71. Between a sex offender who's done his/her time and a dangerous new power for the government...

I know which I prefer.

[Corgigal]

43. Depends on what "type" of offender we are dealing with

In child sex abuse, they have defined it into two camps. They are;

The situational child sex offender does not have a true sexual preference for children, but engages in sex with children because he or she is morally and/or sexually indiscriminate and wishes to 'experiment' with young sex partners

and;

Preferential child sex offender have a definite sexual preference for children. Psychiatry views their tastes for immature and powerless sexual partners as the manifestation of a personality disorder (hebephilia). They are smaller in numbers than situational offenders, but potentially can abuse larger numbers of children.

http://www.ecpat.net/eng/CSEC/faq/faq13.asp


No one can help preferential sex offenders. It's hot wired into their brains.

[Phx_Dem]

47. The problem is "risk assessment"

It's one thing for a clinician to say "as a group pedophiles re-offend at at rate of 15.55%" but when a clinician makes a risk assessment for an individual it's sheer speculation. The same is true for assessing individual future violent acts.

[varkam]

49. Not sheer speculation

But I do share your frustation. The field of risk assessment is one part science and two parts art. There are several traits that have fairly strong correlations with recidivism such as level of education, ownership of crimes, whether or not an individual is seeking treatment voluntarily, stable employment, roots in the community, etc. etc. etc. The task of the clinican, AFAIK, is to examine those traits in the individual to determine the liklihood that they will reoffend. There's more to it than speculation, but it's definitely a hazy concept.

[Phx_Dem]

52. That's a good explanation--I overstated it a little bit

Nevertheless, is it reasonable to incarcerate a felon for an indeterminate amount of time time based on a clinicians opinion, even if it is based partly on psychosocial variables etc.? IMO it's not. Nice work in this thread btw.

[ProudDad]

62. I agree

"Nice work in this thread btw."

This thread has been the most rational and useful thread on this subject that I've seen on DU (or most anywhere).

[varkam]

68. If that's directed towards me

then thank you :D I think there have been plenty of good, reasonable opinions here - mine being a small few of them.

[varkam]

67. Thank you for the compliment.

Certainly the field needs improvement and fast. I think a lot of fear-mongering has gotten to the system such that clinicians want to err on the side of caution - which is by no means an appropriate response to the nature of these crimes.

[ProudDad]

63. Civil Commitments have been used by California

since 1996.

"This statute, created by Chapter 793, Statutes of 1995, went into effect on January 1, 1996. It established a new category of civil commitment for persons found, upon release from prison, to be sexually violent predators (SVP). The initial term of commitment is two years and may be renewed until the individual’s diagnosed mental disorder has so changed that he or she is not likely to commit an act of sexual violence."

http://www.dmh.ca.gov/socp/

AFAIK, SCOTUS hasn't fully weighed in on civil commitments yet. Some District courts have upheld commitments but the final word isn't in.

For the very few, egregious, repeat offenders, letting them out without extreme (and extremely expensive) surveillance is not a good option.

It looks like the new NY law (unlike California's) includes a judicial path that may pass muster.

It's too bad that so many of them are housed in torture chambers -- it demeans us all and just validates their deviant point of view with respect to their "responsibilities toward society".

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. They do this in Washington. It is a failure.

My brother worked as "a counselor" at McNiell Island. It was the worst job in the world.
* he had no training as a counselor of any sort.
* his job was to shepherd the offenders from area to area. As "a counselor" his only weapon was a radio.
* his job gave him access to the case history of each of the offenders in his care. He started out quite judgemental about "rapos" but after reading their background, he developed great empathy for several of them. One guy in particular had been committed at age 23 for having sex with an underaged girl who he met in a bar. He did not know that she was underage. He served his short sentence then was committed to, for all practical purposes, a life sentence.
* not one of the "residents"(not prisoners, but involuntarily committed psychiatric patients) has ever been released from committment.
* the state does little more than a head-fake attempt at treatment.
* the general population hated these guys. The jail guards hate them too. In one instance, a jail guard left doors unlocked which allowed the populations to mingle. One of the residents was murdered. To my knowledge, no one was ever punished.

Once someone gets into "special committment" they don't get out. It's a life sentence, and no one is going to go out on a limb to let any of them free. There is no due process for them. There is no concept of "paying ones debt to society". Their entire lives are determined when a court psychiatrist assigns three words; 'likely to reoffend'.

http://askgeorge.wa.gov/dshs/highlight/index.html?url=http%3A//www1.dshs.wa.gov/hrsa/scc/default.htm&fterm=special&fterm=commitment&fterm=special+commitment&la=en&search=../query.html%3Fcharset%3Diso-8859-1%26nh%3D7%26style%3Dsow%26col%3Ddshs%26origin%3Ddshs%26qt%3Dspecial%2Bcommitment

[ProudDad]

70. It's a life sentence for all

Thanks to the fear mongers who pushed through Megan's law and its variants, all persons convicted of a "sex crime" get a life sentence of slim chances at jobs, discrimination in housing and are in danger of being the target of vigilantes.

Even many DA's and judges are becoming convinced that the "sex offender" lists are at best counter-productive. "Feel good" legislation that has no benefit...